| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 18.05.04 21:17l 281 Lines 10896 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 3278-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, May 03, 4/9
Path: DB0FHN<DB0THA<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0IUZ<DB0GOS<ON0AR<ON0AR<WB0TAX<KP4IG<
ZL2TZE<ZL3VML
Sent: 040518/1828Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:24302 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:3278-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: GPS Watch -- does anyone know anything about it??
From: "KC2MMi" <kc2mmi@verizon.net>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:16:11 -0400
X-Message-Number: 19
Casio makes a GPS watch, Garmin really doesn't. All Garmin has done is to
bolt a small GPS onto a wrist band, compared to the real "GPS watch" from
Casio it is a huge hulking joke.
DeLuo and others are marketing a small GPS from China (Hong Kong? Taiwan?)
that is about the size of a Zippo lighter, complete and self contained.
Garmin is threatening to ship the GPS18, a slightly larger "puck" next
month. These all speak NMEA and can be interfaced to the D7 now, and I've
been using the DeLuo just that way. I'm powering it from a 4xAA battery
holder right now and there's the rub--the power pack will be larger than the
GPS. I've since found out that it probably will run on 3.3v, not the 5v that
they orginally stated, so I may be able to power this from a single LiOn
cell that is near 4V, and considerably smaller.
The power consumption is still the big issue...AFAIK any GPS still rquires
about 120mA to run, and then the trick is to have an outboard brain that
powers it down (5-10mA mode) then powers it up, gives it a minute to
stabilize and acquire signal, and power it back down again. Now, THAT's a
job for a PIC or other tiny brain! The problem, of course, is that you won't
get constant live position feeds from it.
Which is why the real Casio GPS watch is only good for about 600 "fixes" per
charge, and doesn't try to do full realtime tracking.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: GPS Watch -- does anyone know anything about it??
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@opentrac.org>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 09:30:43 -0700
X-Message-Number: 20
>The power consumption is still the big issue...AFAIK any GPS still rquires
>about 120mA to run, and then the trick is to have an outboard brain that
>powers it down (5-10mA mode) then powers it up, gives it a minute to
>stabilize and acquire signal, and power it back down again. Now, THAT's a
I wonder how much information would be required to use AGPS. Just spit out
raw GPS data for the digi to process and decode....
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: KG6BCP tracker on a Catamaran
From: "Sadowski, Allan" <allan.sadowski@ncshp.org>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 13:18:45 -0400
X-Message-Number: 21
I saw that he posted on the Catamaran site about using a kite to power
his catamaran - and has an APRS Tracker on the boat - I'm wondering if
he's on the SIG and how the kite propulsion is working...
Neat idea (kites pulling catamarans)... not that a tracker on a sailboat
isn't neat as well...
ALOHA
AH6LS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: "Jack R. Smith" <jrsmith2@cableone.net>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 12:21:13 -0500
X-Message-Number: 22
My 2 cents...
(On HF) Several times when I have listened first, heard nothing, and
then transmitted, I have interfered with someone. This is just the way
radio works. Was it intentional? No. When I found out, I QSY'd. (On
APRS) When using my "dumb" tracker, I use a 20 minute cycle when my
vehicle is stationary, and max of 3 minutes when mobile (even though
many recommend 1 minute). This is to minimize intereference. There is
no way to eliminate interference other than not to transmit. Use good
sense for your area. All these houses sending a beacon every 5 minutes
is NOT good sense. Even they will "stomp" on someone occassionally,
even if their system "listens" before transmitting. That's just
reality. Use the recommended settings, or even somewhat longer (if your
area requires it), and the network will work. As many have said before,
if you don't have any new information to transmit, don't! I don't need
a beacon from your house or parked car every 60 seconds!!! Now, if you
cruising down the highway at 55mph or more and sending every 60 seconds,
that's not a problem. Personally, I use "smart" beaconing and a 3
minute transmit on my car, and 5 minutes on my bicycle when mobile and
every 20 minutes when stationary.
Anyway, I've said my piece, so I'll go away now... I can't bear to
watch common sense die a slow, lingering death any longer.
73 de KE4LWT Jack
EM53tl
ARRL and Bicycle Mobile Hams of America
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 13:05:13 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 23
Quoting Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>:
>>>>Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net> 5/2/04 9:09:46 PM >>>
>>Instead of depending on the APRS-SIG for legal advice(!?!), folks
>would be
>>better served by directing there questions here:
>>
>>http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/index.html
>Wow, about the worst thing to do is to ask the ARRL for
>a legal opinion on something they have demonstrated in
>the past that they don't udnerstand. Remember back when
>they tried to declare all of APRS illegal as one way transmissions?
No, I don't. Please provide a link to this.
>Asking for a legal opinion from some missinformed
>lawyers solves absolutely nothing but only raises the
>level of dissinformation...
>Is common sense totally lost today?
Lets see.....
1. I get my legal information from the APRS-SIG from laymen.
2. I get my legal information from a communications attorney who is a officer
of the court.
Yes Bob... I see your point, tough call. ;-)
>But again, its COMMON SENSE. Running a 50W
>DEAF tracker by someone that lives a mile from the
>digi is IN DIRECT VILOATION of the principles of
>best practice. Thus there is no rule other than
>"common sense and best amateur practice" that
>can be applied fairly everywhere...
Do we disagree here? I think not.
My sole point, which is being completely lost, is if someone is that worried
about this, they shouldn't seek their legal advice on the SIG. I really don't
disagree with your technical assement at all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 13:05:17 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 24
Quoting Robert Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>:
>Wow!
>Anyone who believes that "legal professionals" are the
>only one's who know what's right and what's wrong
>must really be on another planet.
When did I ever say this?
I said to depend on the advice of a professional. As much as you and a few
others want to beat your chest here, wave your hands in the air and in
general jump up and down, your not a professional. A professional is one
who is in the industry and often has professional credentials. But to make
this clear, let me give you an example outside of the industry.
Lets say I want to install a large building in Venice Italy. We will call
it the "Tower of Pisa". In designing the foundation of the building, I need
to get a certification of the soil to properly engineer the building
footings.
Do I:
1. Contact the APRS-SIG (or the DIRT-SIG) and ask their opinion?
2. Contact a licensed professional engineer and ask their opinion (and
document this)?
Now, when the building starts to fall over, which action above do you think
would give me, as the building's own, a better defensable position against
legal action?
Yes, I fully agree with you, nothing is black and white and life sucks.
So you do what you want Bob. I'm going to follow 97.101(a)
73
Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: "Daron J. Wilson" <daron@wilson.org>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 11:30:05 -0700
X-Message-Number: 25
>My sole point, which is being completely lost, is if someone is that worried
>about this, they shouldn't seek their legal advice on the SIG. I really don't
>disagree with your technical assement at all.
So, if I may paraphrase, rather than have this special interest group
dedicated to APRS discuss the possible interpretations of the FCC rules
regarding one type of operation, you feel everyone concerned should
contact an attorney and ask for an interpretation? And you believe that
all of these opinions will be the same? And you believe that if it ever
went to a judge for a ruling that his interpretation would be the same?
IMHO it is precisely this type of operation that makes us look like a
disjointed group. Haven't we been told as a group to be self policing
and solve as much of these problems ourselves?
I think the concept is a good discussion, use of the technology is a
good discussion, limiting the discussion to not include views on the
legality of operation is silly. It is a valid discussion item for the
SIG to solicit other operators interpretations, which are only that.
73
Daron N7HQR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Attn: Armchair Lawyers
From: Jeff King <jeff@aerodata.net>
Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 13:32:03 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 26
Quoting Steve Dimse <k4hg@tapr.org>:
>On 5/3/04 at 11:07 AM Michael Mullikin <w8ehh@cfl.rr.com> sent:
>
>>I usually just read and keep quiet on these list. But I think you all are
>>missing the point of the rule.
>>First Transmitting in the blind CAN be an illegal operation and it is
>>certainly is not good amateur practice.
>
>Again, I disagree.
....
>My opinion is that you make a
>reasonable attempt to limit your interference on a packet channel.
And exactly how do you do that on a shared CSMA channel?
>Alow
>powered, modestly antennaed station with a reasonable beacon rate is
>doing quite a bit to limit its interference even without listening.
What is the cutoff here (on a shared CSMA channel)?
1. 300mw on a rubber duck in your shirt pocket?
2. 5 watts on a 5/8'ths wave mobile?
3. 45 watts on a 5/8thts wave mobile?
4. 160 watts on a 5/8ths wave mobile?
5. 25 watts on a 1/4 wave antenna 8000 feet AGL?
6. 1 watt on a 1/4 wave antenna at 95,000 feet AGL?
Now, if your talking about #1 in your above statement, I don't see where we
disagree that much. But all the cases above are real configurations people
have used running deaf APRS trackers. Obviously, #5 and #6 "might" be
special cases in that they are special events, but what about the day to
day use?
Do note, I am not offering a legal opinion in this message as you are. All
I am stating is fact, and that fact is 97.101(a). After reading it, if you
feel comfortarble running in the above configurations, that is clearly your
choice. I do however feel it is wreckless for a lay person to offer legal
opinions on the SIG. Best to go to a real professional for this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
